The Sky at Night - Monday 7 Jan 2013, BBC1

I used to work not too far from the BBC Bristol premises in Whiteladies Road. It is a large, brightly lit urban area but the local astronomical society does have an observatory to the south of Bristol. I look forward to seeing where Pete and Paul will do their outdoor observing guide.

They will do it from where they need to, I suspect they will use the studios for studio stuff like Patrick did for years

As an avid Sky at Night viewer for many years I'm pretty disappointed there wasn't an "In Memory of Patrick Moore" at the end of tonight's episode (the first without Pactrick Moore as far as I'm aware).

Sorry, ignore my last post, I've have Sky at Night on Series Record for the last 6 months or so but for some reason the Episode mentioned in the Thread title didn't record (even though it's on the same channel). DId they have an "In Memory of Patrick Moore" at the end of the Thread Title Episode? (I'm just about to watch it on iPlayer).

Very disappointed- it's not on iPlayer. Also "Speed Dreams: The Fastest Place on Earth" i set to record on HD recorder and it didn't record and not available on iPlayer I thought anything shown on BBC was available on BBC iPlayer for 31 days after original broadcast. Anyone know how to view either of these programs?

Most stuff is only viewable on BBC i-player for only 7 days after broadcast. There was a few minutes of tribute to Patrick Moore at the end of his final episode, which was broadcast in January - as well as the various extra tribute programmes and repeats of old episodes which happened in December.

Very disappointed- it's not on iPlayer. Also "Speed Dreams: The Fastest Place on Earth" i set to record on HD recorder and it didn't record and not available on iPlayer I thought anything shown on BBC was available on BBC iPlayer for 31 days after original broadcast. Anyone know how to view either of these programs?

Watching The Sky At Night this evening it was hard to believe that this was the first ever episode of the show since the spring of 1957 without Patrick Moore on it. Not that I can recall that far back, as I was a long way from coming into the world then. But even though I knew he has now passed, some part of me still expected to see him, and it felt very real that he had gone when the programme ended, even though the regulars were all in attendance. I wonder if this is just a transient provisional set up until a more settled format and presenter will emerge in due course?

Tonight the subject matter had a "back to basics" feel about it in my opinion, which I hope is not an indication of future direction being demanded post Sir Patrick.

Taking another look at his final edition, isn't there something so very sad about him wishing us all a happy new year for a year he himself did not see, and mentioning Christmas that he fell short of.

As he himself said, we are made from stardust, and he has returned from whence he came.

Watching The Sky At Night this evening it was hard to believe that this was the first ever episode of the show since the spring of 1957 without Patrick Moore on it. Not that I can recall that far back, as I was a long way from coming into the world then. But even though I knew he has now passed, some part of me still expected to see him, and it felt very real that he had gone when the programme ended, even though the regulars were all in attendance. I wonder if this is just a transient provisional set up until a more settled format and presenter will emerge in due course?

Tonight the subject matter had a "back to basics" feel about it in my opinion, which I hope is not an indication of future direction being demanded post Sir Patrick.

Taking another look at his final edition, isn't there something so very sad about him wishing us all a happy new year for a year he himself did not see, and mentioning Christmas that he fell short of.

As he himself said, we are made from stardust, and he has returned from whence he came.

Actually PM missed one episode a few years back due to food poisoning.

However, they may well do something next month when the do the Moore winter Marathon. Of course it's quite possible (if not likely) that PM didn't want anything like that on the show about him and I suspect he'd be rather happy with what they did. Patrick was never one for self congratulation.

I thought the dodgy models of the solar system, Lucie Green nearly killing herself blowing up the balloon and Chris with a watering can were all great and a long way from the CGI whoosh bang stuff we tend to get these days and a bit of a subtle nod to Sir Patrick.

One question I've not seen answered yet is what is going to happen to all Patrick's works, especially his drawings, in particular all the lunar stuff he did in the build up to the Apollo missions.

It really annoys me that here is one Brit who had a genuine (if small) part in the Apollo missions and yet his scientific contribution is ignored.

Wouldn't it be nice if the Royal Mail did some stamps for example based on some of his drawings?

I suspect that deep down in the blazer wearing tossers of the establishment there is still resentment that a non scientist amateur had a part in Apollo.

I thought they got it just about right to be honest. In a way a programme about amateur astronomy should basically be outside, rather than in a studio and moving around the country or even the world if the budget stretch's to that. Not sure about the laughter at the end, probably relief they had done the show.

I think Patrick would have wanted them to focus on the astronomy, maintain the amateurish production and most of all try and get younger people interested in astronomy. I'm sure he would have preferred to be out and about and looking at the sky himself, as he did in his early days. The studio is great for events such as the moon landings, but for observation there is a danger of it just becoming another trendy science show.

Patrick probably planned for this, for a long time with his producers and expected Chris to host the programme. It would be odd having Chris sitting in Patricks chair at Farthings though and I think they might have thought that that format would not work.

As an avid Sky at Night viewer for many years I'm pretty disappointed there wasn't an "In Memory of Patrick Moore" at the end of tonight's episode (the first without Pactrick Moore as far as I'm aware).

I can't remember, but did they pay a tribute to Sir Patrick in last month's episode?

Watching The Sky At Night this evening it was hard to believe that this was the first ever episode of the show since the spring of 1957 without Patrick Moore on it. Not that I can recall that far back, as I was a long way from coming into the world then. But even though I knew he has now passed, some part of me still expected to see him, and it felt very real that he had gone when the programme ended, even though the regulars were all in attendance. I wonder if this is just a transient provisional set up until a more settled format and presenter will emerge in due course?

Tonight the subject matter had a "back to basics" feel about it in my opinion, which I hope is not an indication of future direction being demanded post Sir Patrick.

Taking another look at his final edition, isn't there something so very sad about him wishing us all a happy new year for a year he himself did not see, and mentioning Christmas that he fell short of.

As he himself said, we are made from stardust, and he has returned from whence he came.

I wasn't alive when that show first aired on TV! It is sad not to see Sir Patrick there but (and I'm sure he'd agree) the important thing is that the Sky at Night continues on to inspire future generations of amateur and professional astronomers.

Actually PM missed one episode a few years back due to food poisoning.

However, they may well do something next month when the do the Moore winter Marathon. Of course it's quite possible (if not likely) that PM didn't want anything like that on the show about him and I suspect he'd be rather happy with what they did. Patrick was never one for self congratulation.

I thought the dodgy models of the solar system, Lucie Green nearly killing herself blowing up the balloon and Chris with a watering can were all great and a long way from the CGI whoosh bang stuff we tend to get these days and a bit of a subtle nod to Sir Patrick.

One question I've not seen answered yet is what is going to happen to all Patrick's works, especially his drawings, in particular all the lunar stuff he did in the build up to the Apollo missions.

It really annoys me that here is one Brit who had a genuine (if small) part in the Apollo missions and yet his scientific contribution is ignored.

Wouldn't it be nice if the Royal Mail did some stamps for example based on some of his drawings?

I suspect that deep down in the blazer wearing tossers of the establishment there is still resentment that a non scientist amateur had a part in Apollo.

I thought Sir Patrick wanted his house to become a museum/archive and no doubt his friend Brian May will be closely involved in what happens to Farthings.

As far as I recall, American astronauts and NASA officials have all paid tribute to Sir Patrick's very important mapping contribution to the Apollo programme which guided both the earlier lunar probes and then the later Apollo missions themselves. I don't know about the British academic establishment although he did end up as a fellow of both the Royal Society and Royal Astronomy Society. I would certainly say that he made a professional contribution to lunar cartography, that he was a professional science broadcaster and that he was a professional science writer.

I thought they got it just about right to be honest. In a way a programme about amateur astronomy should basically be outside, rather than in a studio and moving around the country or even the world if the budget stretch's to that. Not sure about the laughter at the end, probably relief they had done the show.

I think Patrick would have wanted them to focus on the astronomy, maintain the amateurish production and most of all try and get younger people interested in astronomy. I'm sure he would have preferred to be out and about and looking at the sky himself, as he did in his early days. The studio is great for events such as the moon landings, but for observation there is a danger of it just becoming another trendy science show.

Patrick probably planned for this, for a long time with his producers and expected Chris to host the programme. It would be odd having Chris sitting in Patricks chair at Farthings though and I think they might have thought that that format would not work.

Yes I think it was fine, they may well use a studio for episodes where they perhaps want to do something that needs a studio but Pete and Paul will still do their bit outside and Chris will do his stuff.

I don't think it is just about amateur astronomy. I mostly watch it for up-to-date news on Mars probes, cosmology, orbiting telescopes etc, from all around the world. If it focussed too much on things we could do at home, that would be tantamount to dumbing down.

I don't think it is just about amateur astronomy. I mostly watch it for up-to-date news on Mars probes, cosmology, orbiting telescopes etc, from all around the world. If it focussed too much on things we could do at home, that would be tantamount to dumbing down.

The show has always done a mix of stuff for the amateur general space news and of course stuff on the LHC etc.

So long as they keep that mix i don't mind.

Just out of interest, when did they drop the newsletter? I remember being able to get it by email for a while, but it just seemed to stop. Old fashioned I know but I did enjoy it.

I don't think it is just about amateur astronomy. I mostly watch it for up-to-date news on Mars probes, cosmology, orbiting telescopes etc, from all around the world. If it focussed too much on things we could do at home, that would be tantamount to dumbing down.

The second programme in a row where they have people, not even genuine amateur astronomers, with instruments they don't know what to do with, to show them how to open the box. Down with this sort of thing I mean asking if it was ok to just tie the solar filter over the end of the tube! Really!!

I'd prefer to see it go back closer to the old style, with news about new advances and discoveries, but mainly covering a different topic in depth each month. Oh and if there has to be long and short versions each month, and the short version absolutely has to be shown first, why not add the extras on in the last 10 minutes of the repeat, so it's more convenient to watch it?

What I found mildly amusing about the episode on Sunday evening was the pointing of telescopes at the sun in daylight, when for years Sir Patrick has warned time and again about the dangers of looking directly at the sun with the naked eye, such a during eclipses, and also through binoculars too. Yet here they all were pointing a telescope straight at it! Not sure I heard any warnings? Okay so they had a filter across the lens, but might some people be tempted to use something not suitable and endanger their eyesight?

The mirth of the group at the end rather bemused me. What was that all about? I must have missed something.

Rodney I think your post #160 was excellent and especially the stamps idea.

What I found mildly amusing about the episode on Sunday evening was the pointing of telescopes at the sun in daylight, when for years Sir Patrick has warned time and again about the dangers of looking directly at the sun with the naked eye, such a during eclipses, and also through binoculars too. Yet here they all were pointing a telescope straight at it! Not sure I heard any warnings? Okay so they had a filter across the lens, but might some people be tempted to use something not suitable and endanger their eyesight?

I reckon they'd be more likely to leave the finder scope on and feel an unpleasant burning sensation on their neck as they peer through the eyepiece.

Seriously though, if there is even a pinhole in your filter you would be in trouble, and although Pete Lawrence mentioned in passing that you should check it before every use I think that should have been emphasised more. Everything except light bulb filaments should be completely black when you hold it up to the light.

Even then I don't see a big advantage over just projecting the sun onto a white screen, completely safely.

I reckon they'd be more likely to leave the finder scope on and feel an unpleasant burning sensation on their neck as they peer through the eyepiece.

Seriously though, if there is even a pinhole in your filter you would be in trouble, and although Pete Lawrence mentioned in passing that you should check it before every use I think that should have been emphasised more. Everything except light bulb filaments should be completely black when you hold it up to the light.

Even then I don't see a big advantage over just projecting the sun onto a white screen, completely safely.

I was surprised they didn't recommend the projection method, but taking the finderscope off was a good idea, don't forget you could have younger kids wanting to take a look through the telescope and might try to take a peak through the finderscope.

I didn't see it as a problem having the amateurs there, remember we all started off that way and it's easy to get a bit arrogant over things you think people SHOULD know.

I remember every time PM covered the sun he'd repeat over and over and over about not looking at the sun directly, it is important because as we know it can blind you in an instant.

I didn't see it as a problem having the amateurs there, remember we all started off that way and it's easy to get a bit arrogant over things you think people SHOULD know.

Not so, most people start with an interest, read books etc, start off with a pair of binoculars - which Patrick Moore always said was the best way - and eventually buy a serious instrument when you've worked out more or less what you are going to be interested in seeing.

In any case, The Sky at Night was generally a programme about the subject itself. In the recent past they featured technically competent amateurs at star parties and so on, which is one thing, but as for complete beginners, I don't see the point.

I was surprised they didn't recommend the projection method, but taking the finderscope off was a good idea, don't forget you could have younger kids wanting to take a look through the telescope and might try to take a peak through the finderscope.

I didn't see it as a problem having the amateurs there, remember we all started off that way and it's easy to get a bit arrogant over things you think people SHOULD know.

I remember every time PM covered the sun he'd repeat over and over and over about not looking at the sun directly, it is important because as we know it can blind you in an instant.

That's the only method l've used and it's perfectly good for showing up sunspot clusters. lt's also the only method that's really safe as you don't at any stage look through a lens.